I am also satisfied with the statement of reasons and vote yes.

What about the involvement of the third sector?

Thank you for coming. We need to pay tribute to Elaine Smith for what she did. Thank you for taking on the role.

We have heard that, in your opinion, it is enough that the previous consultation went out to a large number of individuals and organisations. We have also heard about the human rights bill and the good food nation bill that the Scottish Government proposes to introduce. How do you see the process moving? Will there be resource implications depending on how matters develop, because other organisations and other bills will be involved? How does that fit in the process?

Organisations such as COSLA and many from the third sector have raised issues with the budget process. What changes to the process are being considered to reflect the points from COSLA and the third sector? With the new human rights landscape, what changes will there be to handling the budget process? Will things need to be revised in the budget process in the context of the national performance framework?

With reports this morning that police officers are now routinely filling in for ambulance crews by transporting patients to hospital, does the First Minister accept that this Government waited too long to tackle the crisis in the Scottish Ambulance Service?

I will stick to what I asked the first panel of witnesses about participation and engagement. It would be useful to hear from all the witnesses about the degree of engagement and participation that they and those they represent have experienced. Has there been a good exchange with the Scottish Government about what its intentions are and in relation to its attempts to progress matters?

We have already talked today about barriers in the sector. Has your organisation experienced barriers? Have your client base and service users experienced barriers? It would be good to get a flavour of what you believe can be done to improve the transparency and scrutiny of the whole budget process.

I want to tease out slightly more about engagement and participation. Each one of you and your organisations are actively involved and you are supporting the Parliament, the Government and MSPs, so we can learn a lot from what you say about your participation. How do we expand that participation and ensure that we get the accountability and transparency.

You have mentioned other countries and areas that have active engagement. Some of them have the citizen budget and some of them develop some of that role to ensure that there is much more inclusion. However, we find that there are barriers to that, and you have identified today that the process is complex and we need to be quite forensic about how we manage that. Things can be misrepresented or they can be hidden in the process of trying to see how it all works.

I would like to tease out from whoever wishes to answer how you feel we can break down those barriers and engage. We think that we are engaging but, obviously, that is not everyone’s opinion. Our engagement is slightly less than that of other countries and regions, but at the same time we are all trying to get as much information out there as possible. It be good to hear your views on what we need to do more of to engage and ensure that we get that transparency, participation and scrutiny.

No, thank you—I have a lot to cover.

I take issue with the narrative that we have heard this afternoon—that universal credit has been a total failure and is a stick to beat the UK Government with. That is far from the truth. Universal credit has provided opportunity to people; the reality is that it is vastly superior to what it replaced—many work coaches will say exactly that.

No longer are people saddled with a benefits system that makes claimants poorer for choosing to take on more work. No longer are claimants faced with a confusing patchwork quilt of benefits that can be paid. Universal credit has brought simplicity to the benefits system, as well as a tapered system that gradually decreases payments for claimants.

Those factors must be taken into account; they helped employment to rise to record levels in the months that led up to the pandemic. It is precisely because of those aspects that people have gone into work—[Interruption.] No, thank you. I have no doubt that universal credit, along with new schemes such as kickstart and the young persons guarantee, will play an important part in the process, but—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, if I want to take an intervention, I will say so, but I want to continue.

As well as having helped people into work, universal credit has been shown to be resilient. In the pandemic’s opening months, the system had an additional 2 million new claimants in comparison with the previous months. The system was nearly at breaking point, but it did not break—it continued and ensured that individuals received the support that they required. [Interruption.] Not at the moment.

We all know that universal credit needs to be delivered at this time because many people need support. The uplift of £20 a week was followed by a further layer of support throughout this unprecedented time. I was pleased when the six-month extension to the uplift was confirmed in the March budget, following calls from Conservative MSPs for that.

However, it would be remiss of me not to mention, as many colleagues have, the cost of continuing the uplift. Members of other parties tell us that the funding problem is a non-issue, but I am sorry—it is not a non-issue. In the chamber less than a week ago, the SNP social security minister refused to say whether he would permanently double the carers allowance supplement, and the reason for that was that budget considerations were being taken into account.

No, thank you.

In the week before that, SNP members voted down our amendment to call for the Scottish child payment to be doubled in the next financial year. One must assume that budgetary constraints had something to do with that.

It is clear that the SNP Government would like to claim that there is a simple solution, but there is no simple solution to any of this reality. In recent days, a proposed solution has been a reduction in the universal credit taper rate from 63p per pound to 60p per pound. That would still cost about £1 billion, but it would help to support those involved. The taper system of support could also be used to give individuals an uplift; that could be considered.

We have given just some of the reasons why Conservative members called for the Scottish child payment to be doubled in the next financial year. I have sympathy with discussion of both proposals as we go forward.

In response to the contributions from members across the chamber, I would like to speak about what my colleagues have said. Miles Briggs spoke about the unprecedented level of support, with billions of pounds—£14 billion—being given to Scotland to assist and support, jobs-based recovery, plans to kickstart individuals into the community, long-standing work commitments, restarting schemes and building back. Those are all vitally important. Sharon Dowey spoke about the success of the DWP in taking on millions of new claimants across the country, as well as building back and ensuring that the measures were in place.

Jeremy Balfour talked about the two Parliaments and about the 14 years of the SNP Government and the controls that this Parliament has; he talked about the Government not delivering on those and having to hand back powers.

In conclusion, I have already said that this is far from a simple issue with a simple solution—no matter how loudly members on the opposite benches try to shout otherwise. I have said and continue to say that there should be no grievance. The blame game is not what we should be indulging in. The SNP Government should choose to work constructively with the UK Government to move on from the pandemic, to help people back into work, to help people deliver and to help people throughout the recovery. That is what the people of this country want to happen. I support the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs.

I am happy to close the debate on the Scottish Conservatives’ behalf. I am not at all surprised that the SNP Government has chosen to use Government time to debate a matter that is entirely outwith the Parliament’s control. Only last week, the Scottish Government proudly reminded the chamber that Social Security Scotland now delivers 11 benefits, seven of which are new, but instead of spending this afternoon scrutinising the Scottish Government’s delivery of the devolved benefits, we have debated the actions of a different Government that is accountable to a different Parliament.